CONTRIBUTOR

SHARE

"A feminist parody version of Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines ... by a group of law students from Auckland University, was posted on YouTube on Friday night and had over 300,000 views at 6am this morning."

CONTRIBUTOR

SHARE

"Yes, fifteen years ago it was. We were kids who didn't know squat about print publishing and now we're older and we don't know squat about web publishing. But we hope Pulp International manages to entertain. It's a bit different from our old Pulp, but it's similar in many ways too. We'll be looking for pulp everywhere – certainly in the usual places, like books and magazines, but also in music and art. For that matter, we'll also be looking for pulp events – that is, real–world crimes with a touch of deceit or corruption. And lastly, we'll be posting images from blaxploitation, sexploitation, noir, horror, sci–fi and psychedelia films, because these too seem like pulp. At least to us. So there you go. Nothing is permanent, and this site won't be either, but as long as it's fun, and you enjoy it, we'll be here."

CONTRIBUTOR

SHARE

"A 'pre-cert video' (Pre-Certification) is any videotape (or laserdisc/CED) issued in the UK before the introduction of the 1984 Video Recordings Act.

Pre-cert videos were not required by law to be submitted to the BBFC so the era was unregulated, leading to many uncut releases of videos which would have fallen foul of the BBFC's strict guidelines, and would therefore have been censored if submission to the board was a legal requirement.

However, whilst many of the larger respectable companies simply issued their previously BBFC certificated cinema releases onto video to play safe as they feared there was bound to be a clampdown at some stage, some of the smaller independent companies decided to take advantage of the unregulated video rentals market by issuing 'strong uncut' versions depicting graphic violence and gore. A whole barrage of titles previously banned by the BBFC from getting a cinema release suddenly ended up uncensored on home video.

What began as a bill drafted by little known Luton Tory back bencher Graham Bright was made law after he and the tabloid press (most notably The Daily Mail) had successfully whipped the media into a frenzied hysteria over so-called 'video nasties'. Ban the Sadist Videos! was one of the more famous headlines they ran. When the bill was made law it became a legal requirement that all videotapes must be submitted to the BBFC for classification (and possible cuts).

The pre-cert video era is best remembered (amongst horror fans in particular) for the ensuing 'video nasty' debacle in which a selection of 72 videotapes were singled out and prosecuted by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) under Section 2 or Section 3 of the OPA (Obscene Publications Act). Of these, 39 titles were deemed by the courts to be obscene and it's those titles which formed the final 'Video Nasties list."